Romans 4:4-5 - A Challenge to Traditional View

[RadicalReformer]

Drew - I do not use the NIV... Sorry your translation arugement is somewhat moot - and perhaps deceiving.

 

[Drew]

Drew - I do not use the NIV... Sorry your translation arugement is somewhat moot - and perhaps deceiving.

It is entirely inappropriate for you to suggest that I am "perhaps" being deceptive. The translation argument is what it is and I stand by it. Do you want to discuss the translation issue - do you want to get into issues of Greek genetives and how there is an inherent ambiguity in how they are translated? It is indeed a central pillar of my argument and allows me to claim that what gets translated as "righteousness from God" can also be translated "God's own righteousness". In other words, it allows me to claim that "righteousness", in these contexts, is not a description of a state we get, but rather a description of how God is acting. If you can undermine my position here on this "technicality", you have damaged my argument (NT Wright's argument) considerably.

So I am calling you out - are you prepared to actually make a case that I am wrong on the translation issue?

 

[RadicalReformer]

Yes - I believe you are being deceptive, since in my post I say that I am quoting from the NASB.

You on the other hand, attack my position, not on the basis of the translation that I used, but on the translation of the NIV.

 

[unred typo]

quote by RadicalReformer:
Yes - I believe you are being deceptive, since in my post I say that I am quoting from the NASB.

You on the other hand, attack my position, not on the basis of the translation that I used, but on the translation of the NIV.

I think we can assume that Drew was making an educated guess as to what translation you used, since you didn’t specify. Compare the verse in the translations below and see if you can match which translation is most like the NASB, and I think you‘ll have to admit the NIV was a pretty good guess since it also uses the word, IN and not OF. Since that was Drew‘s point, the objection is “mootâ€Â:

NASB:
22even the righteousness of God through faith IN Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

KJV
22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith OF Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Young’s Literal Translation
22and the righteousness of God [is] through the faith OF Jesus Christ to all, and upon all those believing, -- for there is no difference,

NIV:
22This righteousness from God comes through faith IN Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,

the RadicalReformer Unspecified Version said:
"Continuing in verse 21, Paul says that the "righteousness of God" has been witnessed by the Law and the Prophets and even the righteousness of God is witnessed "through faith IN Jesus Christ for all those who believe."

There is no distinction between the righteousness witnessed through the Law and Prophets, and that of faith IN Jesus Christ. In other words, the righteousness that the Gentiles experience through faith IN Jesus Christ is the same as the righteousness that the Jews experience through the Law and Prophets."

Face it, your unspecified version is close enough to the NIV to be interchangeable in Drew’s example. If it was such a big deal that you be credited with using the NASB, you should have specified it. Stop this charade. Answer the point or admit you have nothing to say.

p.s. if you didn't have me on ignore you would have seen this drawn out in living color a couple of posts ago. :-D

 

[RadicalReformer]

From my post:

Let's start in Chapter 3 verse 20 and continuing through to verse 24. I will be using the NASB.

Makes it clear which translation I was going to be using.

 

[unred typo]

quote by RadicalReformer:
From my post:

Let's start in Chapter 3 verse 20 and continuing through to verse 24. I will be using the NASB.


Makes it clear which translation I was going to be using.

You are absolutely correct. All my references to your “Unspecified version†should read, ‘your SPECIFIED version, the NASB.’ I apologize for inadvertently misrepresenting you. That’s what happens when one is reading in such a hurry that they skim over words. Not a good idea. In fact it was extremely incompetent and I have stupidly diminished a perfectly good argument by my bungling oversight. I will humbly eat my crayons now. Please pass the grey poupon.

The case that was put out remains to be answered, however. Both the NIV and the NASB use the word IN instead of OF, which was what Drew was attempting to show. I’m quite sure, he had also forgotten your reference to the NASB because his argument works as well with using either version.

 

[Drew]

Yes - I believe you are being deceptive, since in my post I say that I am quoting from the NASB.

You on the other hand, attack my position, not on the basis of the translation that I used, but on the translation of the NIV.

Well, if you wish to argue the translation issue by maligning my character and impugning my motives, that may be your right.

The point remains: Regardless of whether we are talking about the NIV, the NASB, or "Rusty's Down Home" version, the original Greek that has been translated as:

"righteousness from God" (in the sense of something we "get")

can legitimately be translated:

"God's own righeousness" ("in the sense of something that God does)

If I am correct about, this substantially undermines your argument. Do you wish to discuss the technicalities of translation that are involved? I may go ahead and prove my point about this translation issue, whether or not you are willing to address it.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Yes - I believe you are being deceptive, since in my post I say that I am quoting from the NASB.

You on the other hand, attack my position, not on the basis of the translation that I used, but on the translation of the NIV.

Well, if you wish to argue the translation issue by maligning my character and impugning my motives, that may be your right.

The point remains: Regardless of whether we are talking about the NIV, the NASB, or "Rusty's Down Home" version, the original Greek that has been translated as:

"righteousness from God" (in the sense of something we "get")

can legitimately be translated:

"God's own righeousness" ("in the sense of something that God does)

If I am correct about, this substantially undermines your argument. Do you wish to discuss the technicalities of translation that are involved? I may go ahead and prove my point about this translation issue, whether or not you are willing to address it.

I am not a Greek scholar... are you? Will you be using your own understanding of the Greek language used during the NT times? or will you be relying on the other NT... NT Wright?

 

[Drew]

OK..if we must get into Greek technicalities, we must. Here is Romans 3:22

This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe

The commentary about this verse in the NET bible about the phrase rendered as "faith in Jesus Christ" is as follows (I have added some bolding for emphasis):

A decision is difficult here. Though traditionally translated “faith in Jesus Christ,†an increasing number of NT scholars are arguing that ÀίÃĀι ΧÃÂιÃĀοῦ (pisti" Cristou) and similar phrases in Paul (here and in v. 26; Gal 2:16, 20; 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9) involve a subjective genitive and mean “Christ’s faith†or “Christ’s faithfulness†(cf., e.g., G. Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,†ExpTim 85 [1974]: 212-15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ [SBLDS]; Morna D. Hooker, “ΠίÃĀι ΧÃÂιÃĀοῦ,†NTS 35 [1989]: 321-42). Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive view is that when ÀίÃĀι takes a personal genitive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2 Thess 1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet 1:5). On the other hand, the objective genitive view has its adherents: A. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul,†NovT 22 (1980): 248-63; J. D. G. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,†SBL Seminar Papers, 1991, 730-44. Most commentaries on Romans and Galatians usually side with the objective view.

To be entirely fair, I have bolded the bit where it is stated that most commentaries take what is effectively your (RR) position (the "objective" view). But one thing I think is clear - the question as to whether to translates the Greek into "faith in Jesus Christ" or "faithfulness of Jesus Christ" is very much an open question. And I never suggested otherwise.

I have argued that overall context favours the "faithfulness of Jesus Christ" reading.

 

[Vic C.]

I have argued that overall context favours the "faithfulness of Jesus Christ" reading.

Oh man, I have to agree; most translations derived from the TR reflect this.

KJV Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Young - and the righteousness of God [is] through the faith of Jesus Christ to all, and upon all those believing, -- for there is no difference,

21st century KJV - even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all those who believe. For there is no difference,

Darby - righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ towards all, and upon all those who believe: for there is no difference;

It's the proper way to interpret the phrase. The problem for some is that it affects their theology. This is Imputed righteousness at work, folks. I understand that. AV, when he was here, stressed this over and over again. Before the Cross was one thing but... after the Cross well, this is where the crux is for some. Good works takes a back seat in the "salvation equation". 8-)

2 Corinthians 12:6 - And He said to me, My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is perfected in weakness. Therefore, I will rather gladly boast in my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may overshadow me.

This is from http://www.spu.edu/depts/uc/response/sp ... anded3.asp

Richard Hays, George Washington Ivey Professor of New Testament, Duke Divinity School

“When I was in graduate school, I was studying the Greek text of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. I suddenly realized that the phrase usually translated “through faith in Jesus Christ†(Galatians 2:16, 3:22) was dia pisteos iisou Christou, which might more naturally be translated “through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.†This became a watershed moment for me, as it helped me understand that we are saved not by the quality of our own act of believing, but rather by what Jesus has done for us through his faithful act of giving himself for us. (Cf. 2 Timothy 2:13: “If we are faithless, he remains faithful.â€Â) All the emphasis shifts from our own subjective religious experience to the true story of God’s action in Christ. I ended up writing my doctoral dissertation on this issue, but it was for me first of all not just an academic insight but a life-changing, faith-forming recognition.

“Interestingly, these two revelatory experiences have a common theme, a common message from Scripture: ‘It’s not about you, it’s about Jesus.’â€Â

This is what AV said many times and I believe it; "It's not who He was, but what HE did."

Sorry if I went on a tangent in a different direction, but God asked me to tell you this. ;-)

 

[RadicalReformer]

Drew, Let's look at the context of Romans 3:22 by starting with Romans 3:21-24. I will be using the NASB (now, there should be no question as to which version I am using!)

• But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets.

Okay - the righteouness of GOD has been manifested - in Christ Jesus. This manifestation has been witnessed by the OT (the Law and the Prophets). Continuing with the text:

• even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no dictinction for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Here, the Jew cannot claim that they are "special" because they are God's chosen people. Or that they do not need to have faith in Jesus Christ. Why? Because ALL have sinned. All are guilty before God. the Rightouesness of God is only credited to the believer because they have faith (belief) IN Christ Jesus. Continuing all with the text...

• being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.

If belief is not necessary, then all are saved. While some might find the teachigns of UR attractive, I for one find heresy and unbiblical. Justification comes as a gift from God through His grace because of belief IN Christ Jesus.

This cannot be any more clear form the text.

 

[Drew]

It's the proper way to interpret the phrase. The problem for some is that it affects their theology. This is Imputed righteousness at work, folks. I understand that. AV, when he was here, stressed this over and over again. Before the Cross was one thing but... after the Cross well, this is where the crux is for some. Good works takes a back seat in the "salvation equation". 8-)

2 Corinthians 12:6 - And He said to me, My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is perfected in weakness. Therefore, I will rather gladly boast in my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may overshadow me.

You will not be surprised that I take no issue with you on the "translation" question.

I am not sure what you mean by the above, though. I politely suggest that the 2 Corinthians 12 verse does not remove the role of "good works" in our justificaiton. Are you not, in effect, arguing that if grace is sufficient, then 'good work' cannot be necessary for our justification?

I suggest that such a view entails a very specific understanding of what "grace" actually means. I would say that the sufficiency of grace is in no way undermined by taking texts like Romans 2:7 seriously. Good works are indeed the basis of our justification as Romans 2:7 and 2:13 teach (not to mention Jesus' teaching about the sheep and the goats) and yet it is only by the "grace" of God that He gives us the Spirit that allows us to do those works.

Are you saying that the concept of grace, as a concept, is such that if one says "Fred is saved by grace", he cannot be saying that Fred's works play a role in his salvation? If so, how would you defend such a position against the argument that you are "reading" a "faith and faith only" interpretation into the content of the concept of "grace".

Let's say that I am a hobo who is given a job by some rich businessman. All I need to do is sit at a desk and press a button at the beginning of each workday and a machine then takes over. I get paid $ 100,000 for this. I think it is entirely true to the sense of the word "grace" to say that I am the recipient of grace, even though I will not get the $ 100,000 if I do not show up and press the button.

I am not sure what position you are taking re "imputed righteousness". Can you please clarify?

 

[Drew]

• even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no dictinction for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.[/color=#0040FF]

Here, the Jew cannot claim that they are "special" because they are God's chosen people. Or that they do not need to have faith in Jesus Christ. Why? Because ALL have sinned. All are guilty before God. the Rightouesness of God is only credited to the believer because they have faith (belief) IN Christ Jesus. Continuing all with the text...

I am not sure what your point is here. Can you explicitly say that you are arguing against one or more of the following positions which I hold:

1. God is not in the business of "crediting His own righteousness" to anyone. The believer gets the "you are acquitted" righteousness that we see in the lawcourt, he does not get the righteousnes of the judge;

2. Paul is setting justification by faith against the ethnic distinctiveness of Torah, not good works.

3. In verse 22, it is perfectly legitimate to translate "faith in Jesus Christ" as "faithfulness of Jesus Christ".

I actually see little to disagree with in your post, except the implication that we get "credited" with the God's righteousness as opposed to simply the righteousness of the acquitted defendent.

Can you clarify what your point is please?

I see verse 22 as basically saying this:

"God's righteous behaviour, his keeping of His covenant, has been achieved through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, and these actions on the part of God and Jesus are for the benefit of all who believe"

Why, exactly, cannot I not take verse 22 as meaning essentially this?

 

[Vic C.]

I am not sure what you mean by the above, though. I politely suggest that the 2 Corinthians 12 verse does not remove the role of "good works" in our justificaiton. Are you not, in effect, arguing that if grace is sufficient, then 'good work' cannot be necessary for our justification?

No, I'm not, scripture is saying it. You don't know by now that at the core, I am "Faith alone" person? We Baptists have a saying, " Justified = just if I'd never sinned". 8-) I didn't initiate my salvation. What I do as far as good works, I do as a result of salvation. I do nothing to show the world I'm saved, but through me, God does HIS work. 2 Corinthians 12:1 stands on it's own. It does not change in context.

I am not sure what position you are taking re "imputed righteousness". Can you please clarify?

Simply this; the righteousness of our Lord Jesus, satisfies everything needed to impute God's grace on those who believe and have trust (faith) in Him. Without His promise to believes and His faithfulness, whatever faith I may muster is in vain. Now of course, because I'm a believer in a Second Advent, resurrection/transformation of believers, this is when I believe it all is completed.

Drew, for the most part, this is Reformed Theology 101. ;-) I'm no scholar, so I can't clear it up much more than this. I just frustrated by what I believe vs. how to express it in written form.

 

[Drew]

No, I'm not, scripture is saying it. You don't know by now that at the core, I am "Faith alone" person? We Baptists have a saying, " Justified = just if I'd never sinned". 8-) I didn't initiate my salvation. What I do as far as good works, I do as a result of salvation. I do nothing to show the world I'm saved, but through me, God does HIS work. 2 Corinthians 12:1 stands on it's own. It does not change in context.

It is not that simple. What you are doing is effectively claiming what "grace" means without acknowledging or responding to entirely coherent and reasonable arguments that grace, as a concept, does not preclude the necessity of good works. One cannot simply "choose" arbitrarily to believe that grace rules out good works. Romans 2 suggests otherwise. If I may be so bold, when someone mentions "grace", the typical evangelical will hear "and therefore not works". But I must stress, you simply cannot assume this. So please tell us why grace and "justification by works" cannot go together.

If the arguments that I present in this and other threads about the necessity of works for our justufication are wrong - and they must be wrong in order for your position to be correct - then why not explain how my position is incorrect. You have every right to simply state what you believe. But when you say that scripture endorses your position, you arguably need to show the flaws in arguments for competing positions.

It seems that you cannot possibly take Romans 2:7 at its most plain reading - that good works are necessary for our justification.

So what is your take on Romans 2:7? What is Paul saying in that verse?

Drew, for the most part, this is Reformed Theology 101. ;-)

I assume that you will agree that the real authority is vested in the scriptures, not in the position of the reformers. In the same vein, I will assume that you will agree that we all need to be open to let scripture speak to us "directly" (to the degree that this is even possible) rather than "through the lens" of a reformed (or any other) viewpoint.

 

[Vic C.]

Drew, it was not my intention to engage in debate. I simply offered why I thought one interpretation of some verses was correct over another interpretation without going deep into any Greek. I gave my understanding of justification and imputed righteousness and if it sounds a little like reformed theology, it is because I agree with them, not because I allow them to dictate to me my theology. I'm not that easily swayed by popular beliefs just because they may be a majority belief. That includes my somewhat triune beliefs.

If everyone somehow needs a degree in Biblical theologies, then my simple faith is useless without a doctorate. 8-) I'll leave you to Rad and return to the sidelines, with my Coach. 8-)

 

[Drew]

Returning to the issue of the imputation of God's righteousness to the believer. I have come to believe that the Scriptures never indeed teaches this and some material that both Vic and I have posted are relevant in that such material shows that that texts that have been rendered as "righteousness from God" could have also been translated "God's own righteousness" (i.e. a property of God that we don't get).

Consider 1 Corinthians 1:30 as per NASB:

But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and, sanctification, and, redemption

If one is going to go with the idea that Christ's own righteousness is ascribed to us, then to be consistent, we have to go whole hog and assert, for example, that Christ's wisdom has been ascribed to us. All we believers have been ascribed Christ's wisdom.

Does this evidence of some of the posts in these forums suggest that indeed the very wisdom of Christ has been imputed to all believers.

Golly, I hope not.......

 

[Vic C.]

If one is going to go with the idea that Christ's own righteousness is ascribed to us, then to be consistent, we have to go whole hog and assert, for example, that Christ's wisdom has been ascribed to us. All we believers have been ascribed Christ's wisdom.

Does this evidence of some of the posts in these forums suggest that indeed the very wisdom of Christ has been imputed to all believers.

Our Coach sent me back in to clarify something. :-D What is your definition of righteousness and why do you connect righteousness to wisdom? They aren't really connected in the NT, at least not in reference to the plan of salvation. One needs to be made righteous in order to be saved. One does not have to be wise to be saved. That negates all those who do not possess the mental ability to be wise. We don't want to leave them out of the plan.

Wisdom as part of the plan of salvation? Nah. ;-) It's an attribute more of us should pray for but it's not needed to be saved. God's righteousness however, is needed and is imputed apart from wisdom. It's not available without a Savior (unless one is willing to live by the Torah and forgo their real need for a Messiah... good "luck") It's part of that whole "Grace" package.

 

[Vic C.]

Returning to the issue of the imputation of God's righteousness to the believer. I have come to believe that the Scriptures never indeed teaches this and some material that both Vic and I have posted are relevant in that such material shows that that texts that have been rendered as "righteousness from God" could have also been translated "God's own righteousness" (i.e. a property of God that we don't get).

I just reread your post. This leads me to believe you have misunderstood the concept of imputed righteousness. You added the "we don't get" part.

Study it some more, Drew. I'll give you the "Wiki" definition, you can take it from there.

Imputed righteousness is a concept in Christian theology which proposes that righteousness of Jesus Christ satisfies all criteria necessary to share in God's grace. Those who trust in the promise that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross atones for their sins believe in this type of righteousness as opposed to imparted righteousness and sanctification. The teaching of imputed righteousness is a signature doctrine of the Lutheran and Reformed traditions of Christianity.

 

[Drew]

Hello Vic C:

I am merely pointing out that if you take a verse like this:

But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and, sanctification, and, redemption

and apply the same principle of concluding Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, then logical consistency demands that we conclude that his wisdom is also imputed to us. Do you deny the logic here?

The "imputation of Christ's righteousness" position is put in a no-win situation by this verse:

1. If you claim that this verse is another evidence of the fact that Christ's own righteousness is imputed to us, then you must also assert that his wisdim is imputed to us, since righteousness and wisdom are treated the same way in the verse. And we all know that we are not all walking around with the wisdom of Christ.

2. If you deny that this particular verse is saying that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, even though other texts do support imputation, you are put in the very awkward position of having to explain how it is that "Christ Jesus becoming to us righteousness" in this vrese is not at least as clear a statement of imputation as in, say, this verse from Romans 3:

This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe